11:51 PM CDT on Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Groups attacking Texas’ environmental policies have gained an important ally: the Obama administration.

Shucking off years of arms-length relations with Texas’ anti-pollution activists, the Environmental Protection Agency has reached out to organizations that have challenged state permits and practices.

The new federal attitude is already putting pressure on some major Texas industries and on the oft-criticized Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is run by Republican Gov. Rick Perry’s appointees.

In the five months since President Barack Obama took office, the EPA has sided with the TCEQ’s critics and blocked the reopening of a controversial copper smelter in El Paso; signaled new federal enforcement against big, state-regulated facilities such as refineries and chemical plants; and threatened to strip Texas of its authority to issue major air pollution permits unless the state agrees to changes.

The EPA also invited leaders of Texas and national environmental groups that are battling the state to a private meeting with Administrator Lisa Jackson on her first visit to Texas as Obama’s top environmental appointee. They told Jackson that Texas was “a state under siege” and that the EPA needed to send “reinforcements and enforcement,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen, who attended the meeting.

Jackson told The Dallas Morning News in an interview that Texas’ environmental regulation has become a major concern of hers. She singled out what she described as inadequate opportunities for the public to review key permit decisions.

Perry has repeatedly defended how Texas regulates toxic emissions from factories, refineries and other big industries, saying the state is protecting jobs along with the environment.

“Governor Perry has proven that stifling government mandates are not the answer to our state’s energy and environmental challenges,” press secretary Allison Castle said. “Texas has proven it possible to balance sound environmental policies with pro-growth economic efforts that have produced the best business climate in the country.”

The TCEQ rejected the federal complaints. In a June 5 letter to the EPA’s acting regional administrator in Dallas, Executive Director Mark R. Vickery said the commission meets federal requirements.

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told the EPA that the TCEQ had “exhibited a lack of public concern” by refusing to order formal hearings on major permits. The most recent North Texas case came in February, when TCEQ commissioners approved a 10-year permit renewal for TXI’s Midlothian cement plant without a formal hearing.

“They’ve played their hand for too long,” Davis said.

‘Major concerns’

During a meeting with state environmental officials May 26, EPA officials laid out “major concerns” with state procedures on key permits. The EPA cited limited public input, lack of public notice for some permits, inadequate emissions accounting and a failure to enforce rules that trigger tougher requirements for new or modified plants.

If the agencies do not resolve their differences, the EPA could revoke Texas’ authority to manage permits under the Clean Air Act, according to a presentation the EPA made at the meeting. The EPA later provided a copy to The News.

Like most states, Texas now has authority to handle federal air permits on the EPA’s behalf. The EPA retains approval authority over state programs and can formally object to a state-issued permit, as it threatened to do in the case of Asarco’s controversial copper smelter in El Paso.

That threat came Feb. 3, just two weeks into the new administration. The EPA said it found numerous legal and procedural problems with Asarco’s permit renewal. The EPA said it would order work stopped on the smelter and start enforcement against Asarco if the state did not rescind the permit.

Asarco immediately gave up its permit.

The next week, the TCEQ’s commissioners voted 2-1 to renew another contested permit, this one for TXI’s Midlothian cement plant. The commissioners rejected numerous requests for a formal hearing, a long, trial-like process.

The contested case hearing is a potentially powerful weapon for a plant’s opponents that does not exist in federal law  an example, Texas officials point out, of greater public input under Texas’ system.

However, the TXI case also revealed a lack of public scrutiny of state permits. The North Texas environmental group Downwinders at Risk found this month that the TCEQ had approved a modification for TXI  allowing it to burn scrap tires as fuel in its newest Midlothian kiln  with no public notice, chance for public comment or trial burn, a test of how a new fuel affects emissions.

Because burning scrap tires instead of coal, the kiln’s typical fuel, usually reduces smog-causing nitrogen oxides, the TCEQ considered the change a pollution reduction project that required no public notice. Environmentalists said they had no chance to review possible increases in other emissions, including metals.

Groups sue

Public interest groups have sued Texas companies under the federal Clean Air Act to force pollution cuts that neither the state nor the EPA had achieved. In one such case, Environment Texas and the Sierra Club sued Shell’s massive refinery and chemical complex in Deer Park, near Houston, in early 2008.

Despite Shell’s state permits, the environmental groups found more than 1,000 occasions from 2003-06 when emissions exceeded hourly limits, which are meant to protect the public from acute, short-term harm.

On three dates, records showed, Shell emitted more toxic compounds in a single day than its permits allowed in an entire year.

Shell responded in a legal filing that many emissions came during start-ups, shutdowns and maintenance, “clearly contemplated by the state as being an expected part of refinery and chemical plant operations.” Until recently, Shell said, the TCEQ did not put permit limits on those emissions.

A settlement signed by a federal judge June 16 requires Shell to cut excess emissions by more than half within three years, improve emissions accounting, change equipment and processes, and pay $5.8 million to Houston-area environmental programs.

The federal government was not a party to the suit, but EPA officials were privy to settlement talks and later repeated many of the lawsuit’s themes  including the state’s apparent failure to clean up Shell’s emissions  in their talks with the TCEQ.

The TCEQ has cited Shell’s Deer Park complex for air violations 14 times since 2003, assessing nearly $975,000 in civil fines, records show.

The EPA told the TCEQ that the state had allowed far higher emissions than the EPA would have authorized. The EPA analyzed three plants  Shell, ExxonMobil’s Baytown complex and Magellan’s East Houston terminal  but said 1,461 Texas plants might have similar issues, suggesting possible future enforcement.

The TCEQ disputed the EPA’s assertions.

Neil Carman, clean air director for the Sierra Club’s Texas chapter, was involved in the Shell settlement talks. He said the EPA’s tough stance on Shell and similar companies represented a significant change.

“It’s a sign of the new sheriff in Washington,” Carman said.

AT A GLANCE: WHAT EPA, TEXAS SAY

The Environmental Protection Agency says:

Parts of the Texas permit system do not meet minimum federal requirements.The state offers inadequate public notice for both minor and major permits.

State air pollution plans are incomplete and lack adequate monitoring and compliance provisions.

The state has not addressed concerns of environmental groups or Houston Mayor Bill White, who is seeking reductions in airborne toxic chemicals.

The state has missed opportunities to reduce pollution.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality says:

The state’s permit system meets all federal rules but might need language changes to clarify compliance.Texas permits are written to include all necessary information.

State air pollution plans include all required information.

The public has ample opportunities to comment on permits.

Texas permits provide enforceable and effective limits on pollution.

SOURCES: EPA presentation at meeting with TCEQ, May 26; TCEQ response to EPA, June 5.

0 Comments on “Shell pollution at Deer Park Refinery”

Leave a Comment

Meta

SHELL BLOG

Comments

singapore love: Rumor on the street is the Shell Vito project is over a year behind schedule, AND Shell plans to double down and award Whale to the same contractors in the coming weeks.
Must be some serious love going on between the Singaporeans and Shell decision makers....

Bonus Group: To uscitizen,
BRAZIL:
'PS - Shell is investing 2 billion a year into Brazil and already paying off'. Assuming $2Bn (you did not quote currency), that would just about cover Shell's share of the costs of replicants, operating expenses and of course managers' BONUSES!
$2Bn would represent approximately 10% of Shell's income in 2018.
https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2018/consolidated-financial-statements/statement-of-cash-flows.php
FPSO unit cost: our initial case ($91bn total capex) assumed a cost of $2.5 billion for each of 13 FPSO units. However, our research shows a wide range of possibilities for this cost depending on the vessel configuration; plus the fact that Brazilian shipyards should get better at building them so the cost could reduce over time. Also the project might choose to lease rather than buy the FPSOs outright, which could improve economics for the consortium depending on the lease terms.
http://openoil.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/OO_br_Libra_narrative_1.0_161104.pdf

uscitizen: Bonus group, Contradict myself - lol. Poor guy - like I said do your own research - tell us what you find, you will look like the irrational uneducated poster you are. PS - Shell is investing 2 billion a year into Brazil and already paying off. Do you ever look anything up?

Bonus Group: To US Citizen. Thank you for your post of September 9th 2019 20:12. Congratulations on also being an avid reader of this blog. You are correct in my post of June 26th 2019 23:05 I did say that '..Shell had a ‘fire sale’ of a plethora of BG ‘dross’ assets in order to raise $30Bn to disguise the amount by which they had overpaid for BG Group.' More correctly, Shell had a ‘fire sale’ including a plethora of BG ‘dross’ assets in order to raise $30Bn to disguise the amount by which they had overpaid for BG Group. This does not detract from the fact that Shell did have a 'fire sale' in order to raise $30Bn. By my estimation Shell over paid for BG Group by about 30%. The Christmas boxes were very large, but the presents were very small. You contradict yourself when you say that you will not do my homework for me, but then tell me that the split of the $30Bn assets sold was 80:20 Shell:BG. Is that correct? If so, thank you that just goes to show how worthless those BG assets were, but then that is what you can expect from a Cappuccino and Belgian chocolate lifestyle company. Any comments about what the Brazil Asset are up to these days?

uscitizen: To Bonus Group - the large percentage of assets sold by Shell were non BG assets. I will not do your homework for you, but the split is 80/20. A great example of why you do not take what this sites protagonists post as good information. But go ahead, say I am wrong and also posting garbage, do your research and tell me the number of BG asset sales vs the 30 billion Shell raised thru asset sales.

John Donovan: MESSAGE FROM JOHN FOR THE ATTENTION OF BOGUS GROUP. I have received the information you kindly sent and have replied by encrypted email.

Bill Campbell Prelude Comment: I might write in more detail but I find it rather ironic that it was this website that was telling the world 6 or so years ago that this installation did not have risk levels as low as claimed and one of the principal risk drivers was the compact nature of a hazardous substances plant with not enough space to swing a cat in. Unless you are not aware I wrote to Shell Australia at the time giving them data from 8 existing or planned onshore LNG plants which varied from 80 to 100 hectares or on average 20 to 22 times the footprint of Prelude, could they tell me as a stakeholder with shares in the Company how they arrived at their ridiculously low number but can guess I assume that a reasonable explanatory reply was not forthcoming, as sure as eggs are eggs if this plant is currently having problems or if it has problems or major accident events in future it will be due to the force fitting a complex plant, with risk levels much above which they have published, on a postage stamp of a footprint.
God willing they will never live to regret their fraudulent overly optimistic claims, risk is based on reality not wishful thinking.
Bill

Thanks. Problem is that it's behind a paywall and despite it being a great publication for the oil industry, none of us retired folk wants to invest in a subscription.

FURTHER REPLY FROM JOHN

I have received the further Prelude information you have kindly provided and have replied by encripted email.

Bonus Group: Further to Bogus Group's post yesterday. I am absolutely appalled that a Senior Executive of Royal Dutch Shell plc should spout so much nonsense concerning the Prelude installation. The statement is redolent of Malcolm Brinded and his 'Touch F*ck All' policy, which led to the deaths of Keith Moncrieff and Sean McCue on Brent Bravo on 11th September 2003. What is boring is the continuous misleading spin and blather from the top of this company and their lackadaisical approach to safety. 'Chronic Unease' is a well known expression in the Oil and Gas Industry, and that state of mind is far from boring or routine. In fact nothing is either boring or routine in Oil and Gas operations. Rob Jager moved last year to the post of VP Prelude after spending thirteen years as Country Chair and VP for Shell New Zealand/Shell Taranaki, after Shell announced the sale of its New Zealand interests in March 2018. Jager clearly previously has spent too much time being 'laid back' in the fantasy land of Lord of the Rings, marvelling at New Zealand's scenery and wondering who will be entertaining him for his next luxury seafood dinner accompanied by a glass of chilled expensive New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc.

Bogus Group: PLEASE SEE REPLY FROM JOHN WHICH FOLLOWS THE COMMENT FROM BOGUS GROUP
More on Prelude article in Upstream.

I’m stunned by what can only be described as idiotic statements. Nothing like the utopia of self-aggrandisement without verification. What is Jagers’ level of technical and operational capabilities? I recall similar rhetoric from BG Group charlatans, with the “best in class” mentality and use of the most overstated expression ever to be used outside the education sector, all aimed at pleasing their taskmasters.
Ramp-up of Prelude and what Jager hopes will be decades of “uneventful” and “boring” operation.
“This will be a state where little or nothing happens. We have few if any alarms, no surprises and where things are running like clock work and we are effectively in autopilot,” he said.
“We will know when we have succeeded in this ambition because Prelude will be recognised as the most boring asset in Shell global portfolio our people will refer to it as the safest and most desirable place to work, and when the rest of the industry is knocking on our door to find out how we have achieved such a best in class outcome, especially for a facility as complex and unique as Prelude.”

REPLY FROM JOHN

Hello, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy of the article via [email protected] using an anonymous email address. I would pass it on to retired Shell EP experts for their assessment.

FG names Shell, Eni executives in $1bn bribery case – The Punch08 May 2019 11:43Google’Femi Asu with agency report
Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Eni SpA face additional corruption allegations over a Nigerian oil deal, after the Federal Government said in a London lawsuit that it believed a handful of executives, including Chief Executive …

FG names Shell, Eni executives in $1bn bribery case08 May 2019 08:09Punch Newspapers’Femi Asu with agency report
Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Eni SpA face additional corruption allegations over a Nigerian oil deal, after the Federal Government said in a London lawsuit that it believed a handful of executives, including Chief Executive …

John Donovan’s ebooks

EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZONEBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.